Authority: Supreme Court of India (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction)

Order Date: 11 June 2026

Case Overview

  • Appellant: Surekha Domaji Bele, former Lower Division Clerk (later Upper Division Clerk) of Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited (MSEDCL).
  • Respondent: Executive Engineer, Testing Division, MSEDCL.
  • The appeal stems from a series of disciplinary proceedings that began with her suspension on 04‑09‑2006, charge‑sheet dated 19‑09‑2006, and a show‑cause notice dated 25‑04‑2008 based on a domestic enquiry.
  • The domestic enquiry was later held unfair and perverse by the Labour Court (order dated 29‑11‑2014). The Industrial Court remanded the matter to the Labour Court (order dated 14‑08‑2015) allowing the employer to prove misconduct before the Labour Court.
  • Labour Court found misconduct proved and upheld the show‑cause notice (order dated 27‑06‑2017). The Respondent then dismissed the appellant on 12‑07‑2017, treating the suspension period as punishment.
  • The dismissal order and related orders were upheld by the Labour Court, Industrial Court, and the High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench (judgment dated 05‑04‑2024). A review application in MCA No. 357 of 2024 was also dismissed on 11‑11‑2024.
  • The appellant previously filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP(C) No. 1400 of 2025); the Supreme Court allowed withdrawal and permitted a fresh petition.
  • The present appeal raises five specific issues: competence of the dismissing authority, need for a fresh show‑cause notice after the de novo finding of misconduct, entitlement to subsistence allowance, validity of treating the suspension period as punishment, and proportionality of dismissal.

Findings on Issues

1. Competence of Authority – The Executive Engineer is a competent authority under Regulation 25 and Schedule C of the MSEDCL Employees Service Regulations to dismiss a Pay‑Grade‑III employee. The challenge based on Article 311(1) was rejected as the appellant does not hold a civil post under the Union or State.

2. Fresh Show‑Cause Notice – Regulation 88(j) requires a notice after the enquiry is completed. Since the domestic enquiry was declared defective, the substantive finding of misconduct arose from the Labour Court’s de novo adjudication. The disciplinary authority therefore had to issue a fresh show‑cause notice for the contemplated punishment; reliance solely on the 25‑04‑2008 notice was insufficient.

3. Subsistence Allowance – Regulation 88(a)(iii) makes subsistence allowance payable subject to compliance with reporting conditions, but Regulation 88(a)(ii) mandates review of any suspension beyond six months. The suspension lasted nearly eleven years without such review. The Court held the appellant is eligible for subsistence allowance for the period after 03‑03‑2007, and the first six‑month period must be examined for reporting compliance.

4. Suspension Treated as Punishment – Treating the entire suspension period as an additional punishment alongside dismissal amounts to an impermissible amalgam of penalties under Regulation 91 and Regulation 88(a)(v). The direction to treat suspension as punishment is set aside.

5. Proportionality of Dismissal – While misconduct (indiscipline, insubordination, tampering with documents, negligence) was proved, the Court found dismissal to be grossly disproportionate given the appellant’s long service, absence of financial loss, and the nature of the offences. The authority must consider a lesser penalty.

Final Outcome

  • The dismissal order dated 12‑07‑2017 is set aside as wholly disproportionate.
  • The direction treating the suspension period as punishment is set aside.
  • The finding of misconduct remains undisturbed.
  • The Executive Engineer’s competence to dismiss is affirmed.
  • The Respondent must issue a fresh show‑cause notice, based on the Labour Court’s findings, within four weeks and pass a reasoned order on the appropriate penalty within eight weeks.
  • Subsistence allowance shall be paid: (a) for the period 04‑09‑2006 to 03‑03‑2007 subject to assessment of reporting compliance; (b) for the period 04‑03‑2007 to 12‑07‑2017 unconditionally.
  • No reinstatement order as the appellant is past superannuation age; monetary and retiral consequences will follow the fresh order.
  • The High Court judgment (05‑04‑2024) and the review order (11‑11‑2024) are set aside.
  • All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

Topics: Employment Law, Public Sector Discipline